Goldman Says “No Surprise” In Biden Cap Gains Proposal, Sees Congress Settling On 28% Tax Rate

Goldman Says “No Surprise” In Biden Cap Gains Proposal, Sees Congress Settling On 28% Tax Rate

Today the market freaked out when Bloomberg reported that the Biden Administration will propose to tax capital gains at the top ordinary income tax rate (39.6%, or 43.4% when the existing 3.8% tax on net investment income tax is added).

Well, according to Goldman, this is nothing more than the latest pipe dream trial balloon from progressives, one which won’t actually take place and instead has been floated to set the negotiation “ask”, with Goldman expecting that “Congress will settle on a more modest increase, potentially around 28%.” As such there are no actual “surprises” in the proposal which has been floated in this exact format previously, and while it remains unclear when the tax rate increase would be effective, the bank’s economists “think it is unlikely to apply to gains realized before May, and an increase effective Jan. 1, 2022 is more likely.”

Here is the full take from Goldman’s Alec Phillips

1.Bloomberg has reported that the Biden Administration will propose to raise the federal capital gains tax rate to 39.6%, also the top marginal income tax rate under President Biden’s proposal. In addition to 3.8% tax on net investment income that Congress established in 2009, the combined rate would be 43.4%. We had expected the President to propose this as part of his “American Families Plan” and the proposal comes as no surprise. This proposal would apply to taxpayers with annual incomes over $1 million, and would likely also apply to qualified dividends, which are currently taxed at the same rate as capital gains. We note that the Biden campaign also proposed eliminating the step-up in basis on inherited assets, which would result in much larger taxable gains on those assets once sold.

2. We expect Congress will pass a scaled back version of this tax increase. While it is possible that Congress might pass the proposal in its entirety, we think a moderated version is more likely in light of the razor-thin majorities in the House and Senate. At 43.4%, long-term capital gains would be taxed at the highest rate in the more than 100 years since Congress established the income tax. A 28% rate looks most likely, in our view, as it is roughly halfway between the current rate and Biden’s likely proposal. This is also the rate that President Reagan and a Democratic House settled on a few decades ago when raising the tax from 20%.

3. The issue will likely remain in flux over the next several months. We expect President Biden to discuss the issue among many other topics when he addresses a joint session of Congress on April 28. By early May, the Biden Administration might also release its full fiscal year 2022 budget submission to Congress, which would provide more details on tax proposals including capital gains. However, the timing of this release remains unclear. In the interim, comments from centrist Senate Democrats, such as Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.),could clarify where key swing voters might come out on the issue.

4. It is unclear when the higher rate would be effective, but we see three main options.

  • First, Congress has occasionally made tax policies effective as of the date when the bill is introduced in the House of Representatives. This would likely be no earlier than May.
  • A second option would be to make the higher tax rate effective for gains realized after the bill is enacted into law, which we think will be sometime between July and September.
  • The third option would be an increase effective on January 1, 2022. We note that the last time Congress legislated an increase in the rate, the policy became law in October 1986 but the increase did not take effect until January 1987.

While a retroactive increase cannot be ruled out entirely, we believe it is very unlikely that it would apply to gains realized before May 2021 (at earliest).

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 21:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tIlcx6 Tyler Durden

Texas Ended Lockdowns & Mask Mandates; Now Locked-Down States Are Where COVID Is Growing Most

Texas Ended Lockdowns & Mask Mandates; Now Locked-Down States Are Where COVID Is Growing Most

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Early last month, Texas governor Greg Abbott announced he would end the state’s mask mandate and allow most businesses to function at 100 percent capacity.

The response from the corporate media and the Left was predictable. California governor Gavin Newsom declared the move “absolutely reckless.” Beto O’Rourke called the GOP a “cult of death.” Joe Biden called the move “Neanderthal thinking.” Keith Olbermann insisted, “Texas has decided to join the side of the virus” and suggested Texans shouldn’t be allowed to take the covid vaccine. Vanity Fair ran an article with the title “Republican Governors Celebrate COVID Anniversary with Bold Plan to Kill Another 500,000 Americans.”

Other states have followed in Texas’s wake, and Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are now all states where covid restrictions range from weak to nonexistent.

Georgia and Florida, of course, are both notable for ending lockdowns and restriction much earlier than many other states. And in those cases as well, the state governments were criticized for their policies, which were said to be reckless and sure to lead to unprecedented death. Georgia’s policy was denounced as an experiment in “human sacrifice.”

Yet in recent weeks, these predictions about Texas’s fate have proven to be spectacularly wrong. Moreover, many of the states with the worst growth in covid cases—and the worst track records in overall death counts—have been states that have had some of the harshest lockdowns. The failure of the lockdown narrative in this case has been so overwhelming that last week, when asked about the Texas situation, Anthony Fauci could only suggest a few unconvincing lines about how maybe Texans are voluntarily wearing masks and locking down more strenuously than people in other states. In Fauci’s weak-sauce explanation we see a narrative that simply fails to explain the actual facts of the matter. 

Texas vs. Michigan

The Texas situation is just one piece of a state-by-state picture that is devastating for the lockdowns-save-lives narrative.

For example, let’s look at covid case numbers as of April 20.

Case numbers are a favorite metric for advocates of stay-at-home orders, business closures, mask mandates, and repressive measures in the name of disease control.

In Texas, the total new cases (seven-day moving average) on April 20 was 3,004. That comes out to approximately 103 per million.

Now, let’s look at Michigan, where a variety of strict mask mandates and partial lockdowns continue. Restaurant capacity remains at 50 percent, and the state continues to issue edicts about how many people one is allowed to have over for dinner.

In Michigan, the seven-day moving average for new infections as of April 20 was 790 per million – nearly eight times worse than Texas.

By the logic of lockdown advocates, states with harsh lockdowns should have far fewer cases and less growth in cases.

This, however, is most certainly not the case. In New Jersey, for example, where lockdowns have been long and harsh, case growth is nearly four times what it is in Texas. And then there are Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Maine, and New York, all of which have new case growth rates of more than double what’s going on Texas.

Indeed, the only state with notably lax covid policies that’s in the top ten of case growth is Florida, which nonetheless is experiencing growth rates that are slower than in states run by lockdown fetishists like Andrew Cuomo and Phil Murphy.

Moreover, Florida’s covid-19 overall outbreak has been far less deadly than those in the states that embraced lockdowns long and hard. New Jersey, for example, has the worst covid death rate in the nation at 2,838 per million as of April 20. Right behind are New York and Massachusetts with total deaths per million at 2,672 and 2,537, respectively.

Florida, on the other hand, is twenty-eighth in the nation in terms of covid deaths, at 1,608. Texas has total deaths per million at 1,721.

In other words, Florida isn’t likely to catch up to New York or New Jersey any time soon, and it’s certainly not going to soon catch up with Michigan, which is leaving other states in the dust in terms of case growth. For those who are scared to death of covid, they’d be better off in Florida or Texas or Georgia than in the states that have long embraced lockdowns and claim to be “following the science.”

So how can this be explained?

The lockdown advocates don’t seem to have an explanation at all.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) struggled to come up with an explanation as he testified to Congress.

In previous weeks, Fauci tended to rely on the old tried-and-true claim that if we only wait two to four more weeks, cases will explode wherever covid restrictions are lessened or eliminated. Lockdown advocates tried this for months after Georgia ended its stay-at-home order, although Georgia consistently performed better than many states that continued their lockdowns.

But now that we’re six weeks out from the end of Texas’s mask mandate and partial lockdowns, Fauci could offer no plausible explanation. Rather, when pressed on the matter by Representative Jim Jordan, Fauci insisted that what really matters is compliance rather than the existence of mask mandates and lockdown mandates:

There’s a difference between lockdown and the people obeying the lockdown…. You know you could have a situation where they say, “We’re going to lock down,” and yet you have people doing exactly what they want—

Jordan asked if this explains the situation in Michigan and New Jersey (and other states with quickly growing covid case rates). Fauci then claimed he couldn’t hear the question, and Jordan was cut off by the committee chairman.

No one who is familiar with the situation in states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia, however, would find it plausible that the spread of covid has been lessened in those areas by more militant use of masks and social distancing. Fauci’s testimony was clearly just a case of a government “expert” grasping about for an explanation.

But don’t expect Fauci and his supporters to give up on insisting that New York and Michigan are doing “the right thing” while Texas and Florida are embracing “human sacrifice” as a part of a “death cult.” 

The actual numbers paint a very different picture, and even casual observers can now see that the old narrative was very, very wrong.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 21:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3sJwTT4 Tyler Durden

“You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet: The Digital Yuan Can Be Turned Off Like A Light Switch”

“You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet: The Digital Yuan Can Be Turned Off Like A Light Switch”

Two weeks ago, we reported that one of the most remarkable “features” of the brand new and soon to be unrolled digital Yuan, which should not be confused with any account-based currencies or commercial bank, private or unbackstopped digital currencies…

… is that it will come with an expiration date. As the WSJ reported, “the money itself is programmable. Beijing has tested expiration dates to encourage users to spend it quickly, for times when the economy needs a jump start.”

That’s just the start.

While China’s digital yuan will have an uphill climb in seeking to dethrone the dollar as a global reserve currency – despite Beijing’s protests that it has no such ambitions – as it’s an electronic version of a currency nobody wants (for now), the new currency will allow Beijing to weaponize its currency response to its every growing roster of trade partners. As Bloomberg details, instead of challenging U.S. dollar dominance and neutralizing sanctions, “the digital yuan appears potentially more geopolitically significant as leverage over multinational companies and governments that want access to China’s 1.4 billion consumers. Since China has the ability to monitor transactions involving the digital currency, it may be easier to retaliate against anyone who rebuffs Beijing on sensitive issues like Taiwan, Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

“If you think that the United States has a lot of power through our Treasury sanctions authorities, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” Matt Pottinger, former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Trump administration, said last week at a hearing of the government-backed U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. “That currency can be turned off like a light switch.”

As Michael Every summarizes in his Tuesday Global Daily, “good luck to multinationals heartily agreeing that decoupling is unwanted, as they try to straddle the US, and its growing thicket of USD sanctions wrapped around a human rights foreign policy focus, and China, with its Panopticon e-CNY that can be turned off to ensure US sanctions and human rights foreign policy have no power over it.” 

Indeed, as Bloomberg confirms, so far China has mostly resisted hitting foreign firms in response to U.S. actions on companies like Huawei, holding off on releasing an “unreliable entity list” designed to punish anyone who damages national security. Any move to cut off access to the digital yuan would carry similarly high stakes, potentially prompting foreign investors to pack up and leave.

But, as the report notes, Beijing has recently gone after such major multinationals like H&M for statements on human-rights issues, even while government officials have been careful to avoid directly endorsing a boycott. In a Weibo post last month, the Communist Party Youth League declared: “Want to make money in China while spreading false rumors and boycotting Xinjiang cotton? Wishful thinking!”

There’s more: widespread adoption of the digital yuan – also known as the e-CNY – could give China’s central bank more data on financial transactions than the big tech giants, allowing the Communist Party to both strengthen its grip on power and fine-tune policies to bolster the economy. While cryptos seek to disintermediate the state from monetary transactions, a digital yuan would do the opposite and give the PBOC even more sway and minute control over every single transaction, while obliterating monetary anonymity entirely.

While that level of control may boost growth in the world’s second-biggest economy, it also risks spooking companies and governments already wary of China’s track record on intellectual property rights, economic coercion and rule of law.

So, while many have said that the US has a nuclear option in its escalating feud with China in the form of selective cancellation of Treasurys held by China (whether it will do so is a different matter entirely), China will soon have its own nuclear option.

Yet said option may well backfire: while President Xi has called for greater self-sufficiency in key technologies like advanced computer chips, such a financial decoupling from the U.S. would only hurt China’s economy and potentially leave the Communist Party more exposed to destabilizing attacks, according to BBG. After Xi effectively ended Hong Kong’s autonomy last year with a sweeping national security law, the U.S. refrained from cutting off the territory’s ability to access U.S. dollars due to the potential devastation to the global financial system.

China’s state-endorsed boycott of H&M shows “great commercial risk” for companies that use the digital yuan, Yaya Fanusie, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington, told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission hearing. If foreign merchants had to use the e-CNY, he said in a separate email, the government could prohibit transactions with H&M wallets and the store could disappear from digital yuan apps.

“This is the other side of the coin — Beijing not as a sanctions evader, but more empowered to enforce its own financial muscle,” said Fanusie, who has written extensively on how central bank digital assets may impact U.S. financial sanctions. “China’s digital currency is as much about data as it is about money,” he added. Foreign firms that use the digital yuan “might end up handing over to the Chinese government lots of real-time data that it could not access efficiently through conventional banking technology.”

Ironically, it is China’s desire to have total monetary control that may prevent the continues adoption of its currency at the international level: as Bloomberg notes, China’s ability to see every transaction may make it difficult for foreign banks to use the digital yuan and still comply with confidentiality rules in their home countries, according to Emily Jin, a research assistant at the Center for a New American Security. Alternatively, the currency might appeal to some similarly ruthless, despotic, socialist regimes that prioritize control over privacy protection.

“They might find it easier to convince governments more authoritarian in their leaning that it helps monitor elicit activities or stop them quickly or stop them before they happen,” Jin said. “They aren’t going to market it to everyone.”

That’s right: if the e-yuan is proven to be a success, the US will rush to roll out its own digital dollar…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 20:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3axOaZa Tyler Durden

Income Transfer Schemes: US Versus China – Which Country Is In The Worst Shape?

Income Transfer Schemes: US Versus China – Which Country Is In The Worst Shape?

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Governments take money from here and distributes it there. Michael Pettis discusses difference between China, the US, Japan and Europe in a series of Tweets.

China’s Aging Demographics

Consider the following series of Tweets by Michael Pettis at China Financial Markets.

  1. China had great demographics between the 1970s and until about a few years ago, when the working share of the population surged from the mid-50s (below the global average) to the low 70s (well above the global average).

  2. Now that the working share of the population is set to decline quite rapidly, mainly because of a surge in retirees, this should put upward pressure on household savings, in which case the extent of implicit and explicit income transfers to ordinary households needed to…

  3. rebalance demand towards consumption must be even greater. Because these transfers must ultimately be funded by liquidating government assets, in the end they cannot help but represent a significant shift in the distribution of political power.

Demographics and Redistribution Question

Pettis Reply

  1. The extent and direction of the transfers are different, Mish, so I’d argue that the political implications are likely to be different, but one way or another we should expect political changes. You can’t shift income without affecting the distribution of power.

  2. The needed income transfers in the US and Europe are much lower than in China, and they mostly should involve transfers from the very rich to workers and the middle classes, rather than from government to households, as in China.

  3. I think Japan is somewhere in the middle, and my understanding is that it is the elderly in Japan who retain a disproportionate share of income and who would ultimately have to absorb the costs of rebalancing income.

Tweet Threads

Population of China Has Peaked

This chain of Tweets and replies started with the South China Morning Post article China Facing Economic Crisis as Population Peak Nears

  • Consumption set to slump after population tops out in 2025, says Cai Fang, a member of the central bank’s monetary policy committee

  • Beijing must ‘increase labour participation and social security benefits’ for the elderly to shore up consumer demand, he says

  • If people of working age were faced with the additional financial burden of looking after an elderly relative while trying to raise a family it would make them more likely to save than consume.

Andrew Batson, director of China research at consultancy firm Gavekal made this comment: “The government is not preparing to raise revenue to finance a major expansion of the welfare state.”

What Will China Do?

If China sells assets to fund retirees, the immediate question is “what assets?”

State owned enterprises of questionable value because they need continual government support.

US treasuries perhaps? If not what? Or does China put things off until there is political upheaval?

I do not know what China will or won’t do. But the repercussions of China’s actions could profound.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 20:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3avg5Ji Tyler Durden

“Very Shocked” – Las Vegas Residents Have Trouble Finding Gasoline 

“Very Shocked” – Las Vegas Residents Have Trouble Finding Gasoline 

A redux of the 1970s energy crisis had caused petroleum shortages and price spikes are currently playing out for different reasons in Las Vegas Valley.

Las Vegas social media users complained about Chevron Corporation’s gas stations raising fuel costs and even in some areas running out of various types of fuel. 

Chevron spokesman Tyler Kruzich told Las Vegas Review-Journal that shortages materialized at gas pumps across Vegas last weekend. 

“We are working to resupply those stations as soon as possible,” Kruzich said in an emailed statement Monday to the Review-Journal.

One Twitter user said, “What’s going on with chevron ? All their gas pumps are shut down I went to three locations already.” 

Chevron’s Twitter account responded by saying: “Hi- Due to limits currently in operation on the pipeline serving the Las Vegas area, fuel deliveries have been impacted. Coupled with the increase in demand in the region due to travel and capacity restrictions being lifted, this has led to limited supplies available at times.” 

The energy company blames travel and capacity restrictions lifted, resulting in a surge of fuel demand for West Coast states that has outpaced available supply. 

Review-Journal spoke with Mat Stanley, of Las Vegas, who said several Chevron locations Monday were entirely out of fuel. 

“I went to three Chevron gas stations right by Red Rock Casino, all on Charleston,” Stanley said. “All of the gas pumps had a bag that said ‘Out of order’ and they only had diesel for all three locations. I was very, very shocked.”

Las Vegan Wendy Henriquez noticed multiple Chevron gas stations closed and/ or were out of lower-grade fuel.

She said: “When I got to North Las Vegas, I stopped at another Chevron (that) only had 91 and were out of 87 and 89.” Normally her fuel costs per tank is around $35 – but this time it cost her $50 because of increased prices with the use of premium fuel. 

Review-Journal provided several other accounts of Las Vegans who realized something was wrong when Chevron stations were closed or had limited fuel. 

“I usually pay $3.61 a gallon. This one was nearly $4 a gallon,” Cindy Preciado said, who stopped at several Chevron locations before find gas. “I was panicking. I only have 34 miles left on my car, and I didn’t know if I’m going to be able to make it to work if I drive to more locations. Gas is a necessity and if I have to spend more money, I have no other choice.”

The shortage of fuel and price increases in the Vegas area is centric to Chevron locations. All other gas stations are operating within routine operations. 

Besides the shortage, Nevadans are paying an average of $3.41 per gallon of regular gasoline, said AAA Nevada spokesman Sergio Avila. Last month, residents paid an average of $3.35 per gallon. 

The latest inflation data shows Americans are experiencing some of the fastest consumer price increases in more than a decade. The fuel oil index has increased 20.2% over the last 12 months. 

Of course, as Powell continues to soothe markets with constant jawboning, how there is nothing to worry about… as soaring consumer prices (such as fuel prices) is just a “transitory” phenomenon draining the pocketbooks of Americans. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 20:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3axV1BX Tyler Durden

At The Fed, It’s “A Tale Of Two Diversities”

At The Fed, It’s “A Tale Of Two Diversities”

Authored by Robert Aro via The Mises Institute,

We often hear of this word “diversity.” In 2021, it seems this word is more important than ever when electing cabinet positions, bureaucratic appointments, or other facets of organizational structures throughout the country. Merriam-Webster defines diversity as:

the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : VARIETY

The ironic thing about diversity is it appears to create two “divergent” paths in which it can be obtained. Just last week, the Brookings Institution appeared to inadvertently fall into a “diversity trap” of sorts, when it published the article, “Diversity within the Federal Reserve System.” It begins with:

A growing chorus has called on the Fed to diversify its ranks at all levels to reflect better the heterogeneity of the United States. So far most of these efforts speak to the diversity of the Fed’s principals, namely, the members of the Fed’s Board of Governors and the presidents of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks. 

This is the first, more common usage of diversity. The goal is to ensure a variety of races, genders, or other minority groups are represented. True to definition, by having various physical features, variety could be achieved. Brookings looked at the directors of the Federal Reserve banks as they are the ones responsible for choosing the president of the twelve banks across the country.

To little surprise:

We find a staggering homogeneity among them, with only recent signs of diversification. They are overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly drawn from the business communities within their districts, with little participation from minorities, women …

They mention other areas of the economy such as “labor, nonprofits, the academy” with the routine push for diversity requiring more minority representation, based on physical features of the candidates.

To provide better context to the reader, as an author and a black male, I understand “diversity” from my own life experiences; however, it is important we don’t fall into such a diversity trap.

While having more people of color, females, or even transgendered would bring a different physical look to the Fed, there remains the unseen and overlooked area of diversity, i.e., “intellectual diversity.” This form of diversity appears to have been ignored entirely, supplanted for aesthetic traits.

Last year, I wrote several articles about Judy Shelton, including “Why the MSM Hates Judy Shelton.” While her potential appointment was the responsibility of Congress, one could suggest she may not have gotten nominated to the Fed board because she is a woman. However, studying her history such as questioning the manipulation of interest rates by the Fed, and other such ideas which go against the current mainstream economic dogma, one could argue her rejection by Congress could largely be attributed to her economic views of the free market.

While a racial/gender diverse Federal Reserve might mark a lot of societal checkboxes, and even be inspirational for those in marginalized groups, we should focus on intellectual diversity and how much it appears to be lacking in the Federal Reserve system. Whether the Fed is run by all white males or a mix of males, females and a multitude of races means absolutely nothing as long as the ideas of liberty, freedom, and Austrian economics are excluded from diversity inclusion.

We must ask ourselves: Would you feel better if your oppressor was the same race and gender identification as you? We are told diversity at the Fed is an issue that should be addressed, but it’s superficial, meant to appease popular opinion under the guise that forced inclusion matters. Nowhere are we discussing the diversity of opinions, economic understanding, or beliefs in a free society. Until a high-ranking Fed official speaks out against the Fed proposing ways to wind down its power, it doesn’t really matter who sits atop the Fed’s ivory tower, and diversity is nothing but a ruse.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 19:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Qr0LX1 Tyler Durden

Russia Behind ‘Directed Energy’ Attacks On US Troops In Syria: Pentagon Officials

Russia Behind ‘Directed Energy’ Attacks On US Troops In Syria: Pentagon Officials

In the newest dramatic allegations against suspected Russian malfeasance, the Department of Defense (DoD) on Thursday revealed that it believes the Russian military targeted US troops in Syria with ‘directed energy attacks’ in order to make them ill and unable to conduct normal operations

Apparently some US troops occupying the country began reporting “flu-like symptoms” which caused the DoD to investigate possible linkage to microwave or directed energy weapons on the battlefield of Syria. Politico reports that “officials identified Russia as a likely culprit, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.”

Via AP

DoD officials said they briefed top lawmakers on intelligence which they say points to Russia being behind a series of these suspected high tech attacks. This follows a major investigation being conducted since last year of similar mysterious attacks against US personnel across the globe.

Controversy has raged since late 2016 into 2017 and the “Havana syndrome” story, which involved some 50 diplomatic officials working at the US Embassy in Cuba coming down with strange illnesses and symptoms which many blamed on high tech ‘sonic attacks’ of some sort.  

Personnel reported experiencing everything from vomiting to concussions to chronic headaches to minor brain injuries. But analysts and scientists have been deeply divided on the issue, with speculation ranging from high pitched sounds from crickets or even mass hysteria causing the illness.

But Politico reports of these newest allegations of the potential targeting of Americans in northeast Syria as follows

The briefings included information about injuries sustained by U.S. troops in Syria, the people said. The investigation includes one incident in Syria in the fall of 2020 in which several troops developed flu-like symptoms, two people familiar with the Pentagon probe said.

The CIA is said to also be looking into these suspected attacks via its own task force. 

Strangely, the Politico report also included a denial that troops in Syria were ever found to be victims of such weapons by the Pentagon press spokesperson, strongly suggesting this is a continuation of the current, highly politicized “just blame Russia” climate in Washington…

A Pentagon spokesperson, however, said the department is not aware of directed-energy attacks against U.S. troops in Syria. The spokesperson declined further comment on the Pentagon’s interactions with Capitol Hill or any internal investigation.

The incidents of suspected directed-energy attacks by Russia on Americans abroad became so concerning that the Pentagon’s office of special operations and low-intensity conflict began investigating last year, according to two former national security officials involved in the effort. It’s unclear exactly how many troops were injured, or the extent of their injuries.

At this point the original Havana episode is believed to include the clearest evidence yet of a large group of people reporting to have experienced bizarre symptoms, and yet even this has failed to produce known evidence that Russia or a US enemy zapped Americans with an advanced microwave weapon. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 19:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3nd09jL Tyler Durden

“You Read That Right”: BLM Says Communities Being “Terrorized” At Greater Rate Under Biden Than Trump

“You Read That Right”: BLM Says Communities Being “Terrorized” At Greater Rate Under Biden Than Trump

On the evening of the Derek Chauvin murder trial verdict, a funny thing happened over at Black Lives Matter’s Twitter account.

Amidst a broader discussion (if you can call it that) about Biden’s first 100 days, the organization called for the Biden administration to end transferring military equipment to police officers across the country. The account cited the “military you see out on your streets ahead of the Chauvin verdict” as reasoning for their point, as if a police presence wouldn’t have been absolutely necessary in the wake of a “not guilty” verdict earlier this week. 

But then the official blue checkmarked Black Lives Matter Twitter account, which sports a profile photo of a banner that says “End White Supremacy”, made a startling claim: that the Biden administration was “sending more military equipment” to communities “than Trump did”.

“You read that right,” the account continues. “Our communities are being terrorized at a greater rate than they had been under Trump.” 

The same account was critical of comments made on the night of the Derek Chauvin verdict by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said “Thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice” in her comments after the verdict in the Chauvin trial was released.

“This is so damn disrespectful,” the BLM account said of Pelosi’s comments. 

“George Floyd didn’t choose to die,” the Black Lives Matter account wrote, “He was murdered by a killer cop operating through white supremacy. There isn’t justice here.”

Leaving out the “white supremacy” argument – which we’re sure is appended to any argument that BLM tries to make – we actually agree with them on criticizing Pelosi’s comments, which we think offers some true insight into just how much black lives actually matter to her.

Regardless, the attack on the Biden administration for attempting to police the streets leading up to the verdict is yet another example that BLM’s demands are going to be insatiable, regardless of how much pandering any administration does for them. It also offers a glimpse into the true nature of the radical change that the group hopes to affect. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 19:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3azWUxN Tyler Durden

“Go Big Or Go Home!” – Mars Helicopter Flies Higher And Longer In Second Flight 

“Go Big Or Go Home!” – Mars Helicopter Flies Higher And Longer In Second Flight 

NASA’s Ingenuity helicopter completed a second flight on Mars Thursday morning, just three days (April 19) after making history with the first helicopter to liftoff on another planet. 

Ingenuity autonomously flew for approximately 1 minute and climbed to an altitude of 16 feet. It briefly hovered and moved sideways 7 feet. This flight was more complex than the first. 

“Go big or go home! The Mars Helicopter successfully completed its 2nd flight, capturing this image with its black-and-white navigation camera,” NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) tweeted. “It also reached new milestones of a higher altitude, a longer hover and lateral flying.”

NASA’s rover Perseverance tweeted a short GIF of Ingenuity’s second flight. 

Mars’s super-thin atmosphere is just 1% the density of Earth’s, making it more challenging for the helicopters’ blades to spin around and need about 2,500 revolutions per minute to generate lift. For comparison, on Earth, most helicopters operate at about 450-500 revolutions per minute.

“So far, the engineering telemetry we have received and analyzed tell us that the flight met expectations and our prior computer modeling has been accurate,” said Bob Balaram, chief engineer for the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in a statement.

Balaram continued: “We have two flights of Mars under our belts, which means that there is still a lot to learn during this month of Ingenuity.”

The team is prepared for three more flights next week. 

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 18:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32GILuy Tyler Durden

Stockman: Triumph Of The Woke Mob Led By Two Doddering Old Fools

Stockman: Triumph Of The Woke Mob Led By Two Doddering Old Fools

Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

Events of the last few days have made one thing crystal clear: The Democratic Party (and therefore the nation) is being led by two doddering old fools who should be domiciled in a rest home, not the Oval Office and the Speaker’s Chamber.

How that baleful reality coexists with Wall Street’s expectation of an awesome economic future and stock prices which never stop rising to the sky is one of the great enigmas of our times. Or maybe it’s just because $10 trillion of fiscal and monetary “stimulus” in the past year can turn the proverbial sow’s ear into a silk purse. For a time.

By now, of course, we expect idiocy from Sleepy Joe, especially on the economic front.

Accordingly, at his virtual global summit he will be reading-out from the White House teleprompter the demented agenda of the Climate Change Howlers. Therein he will promise to cut greenhouse gases by 50% by the end of this decade, which calamity we can also promise would cut America’s debt-entombed economy to its knees.

That comes after Tuesday’s White House contretemps when he first prayed for a guilty verdict in the Chauvin trial even as the jury was sitting in its deliberations, and then, afterwards, made the risible claim that this tragedy was the spawn of systemic racism.

In fact, Nanny State over-reach was the underlying cause of George Floyd’s arrest and unjust death—just as it is the source of most of America’s unfortunate violence between police and unarmed citizens, back, white and otherwise.

In both cases, of course, we find Sleepy Joe fronting for the hideous core agenda—race baiting and climate hysteria— of a Democratic Party which has lost its way and has been taken over by a camarilla of woke zealots.

Indeed, if there were any doubt about the latter, Nancy Pelosi’s truly venal deification of George Floyd should remove it once and for all.

Yes, the man was a victim, but he was also a drug-addicted criminal lout and grifter, who deserves no place of honor anywhere; and who’s estranged family deserves sympathy and support, but not a $27 million gift of blood money from a woke city council that takes Minneapolis one step closer to its demise every time it meets.

“And thank God, the jury validated what we saw, what we saw,” Pelosi said in front of the U.S. Capitol Building as she delivered remarks with the Congressional Black Caucus. “So, again, thank you George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice. For being there to call out to your mom. How heart-breaking was that? To call out to your mom, ‘I can’t breathe.’ But because of you – and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice – your name will always be synonymous with justice.”

For crying out loud. George Floyd didn’t sacrifice himself in the cause of justice. He got hopped up on a lethal dose of fentanyl and then foolishly resisted arrest when the original officers on the scene attempted to place him in the backseat of a squad car.

That is to say, the entire narrative culminating in Nancy Pelosi’s hideous idolization of George Floyd has been blatantly wrong from the get go. This case is not about racial justice at all, to say nothing of striking a blow against so called “white privilege”.

For want of doubt, we need to repeat the facts. That’s because they show that episodes like the George Floyd case do not fit the stereotypes of either the BLM and its race-card playing progressive/Dem allies or, for that matter, the Foxified Right’s knee-jerk defense of the nation’s over-empowered, over-budgeted, over-militarized police.

Needless to say, the George Floyd case was not an aberration. During the recent past there were 38 such police killings of unarmed black citizens in 2015, and then 19, 21, 17 and 9 during 2016 through 2019, respectively. That’s 104 black lives lost to the ultimate abuse of police powers.

Of course, the number should be zero police killings of unarmed citizens. There is no conceivable excuse for heavily armed cops—-usually working in pairs or groups—to cause the death of lone, unarmed civilians, regardless of race or anything else.

And in this case that was especially so, and not withstanding several mitigating factors.

For instance, the Minneapolis police officers originally attempted to put George Floyd safely in the back seat of a squad car after his arrest for the petty crime of attempting to pass a counterfeit $20 bill, but he resisted them intensely for up to five minutes. That’s plain as day in the other videos—those from the cops’ body-cams.

The trial evidence from these body-cams also showed that during this struggle around the squad car Floyd said he couldn’t breath six times owing to a severe medical reaction to the fatal level of fentanyl in his blood and the methamphetamines that he had ingested shortly before the incident. These reactions were surely compounded by the man’s “severe” and “multifocal” arteriosclerotic heart disease and clinical history of hypertension, which the Minneapolis medical examiner said was the underlying cause of his death.

Yet after Floyd was cuffed and placed prone on the street, as he himself had requested, and the officers had called for an ambulance owing to his obvious medical distress, the arrest went haywire and Chauvin exposed himself to Manslaughter 2, at least, for no plausible or justifiable reason.

That’s because Floyd had been unarmed throughout the incident, was hand-cuffed and incapable of flight or harming others and was surrounded by four armed officers. Accordingly, he was no threat to them, nor anyone else, and he therefore presented no policing reason for the extended knee-hold on the back of his neck—especially after the surrounding crowd had warned the police that Floyd was in self-evident dire distress.

So as we see it, Chauvin’s conviction on second degree manslaughter does indeed comport with the Minnesota statute, which reads as follows:

…..by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another;

But here’s also where the Woke/Progressive Left narrative goes even more haywire. Floyd’s death was due to an arrest which shouldn’t have happened and bad police behavior that has nothing to do with race.

As to the former point, what should have been on trial in this case was not “systemic racism”, but the Nanny State for grotesquely excessive use of force to enforce a petty counterfeiting complaint that should not be police business in the first place. It’s the job of retail store owners to handle petty counterfeiters or people who unknowingly pass bad greenbacks and to absorb the cost of self-protection just like they do in the case of refusing charges on bad credit cards.

So there is zero reason why George Floyd should ever have been arrested.

As to bad police behavior, you do not have to look too hard to see that it’s essentially color-blind and that being non-black is no guarantee against the same unjust fate.

During the same five-year period in which 104 black lives were lost, a total of 127 unarmed white lives were wasted by the police, as well. That included 32 white killings in 2015 followed by 22, 31, 23 and 19 in 2016 through 2019, respectively.

Overall, 302 unarmed citizens were killed by the police during those five years, with the balance accounted for by 71 deaths among Hispanic and other victims. That is, the real issue is illegal and excessive police violence, not racial victimization.

Indeed, the fact that 34% of these police killings involved black citizens compared to their 13% share of the population is not primarily a sign of racism among police forces, although it is continuously construed to be.

It’s actually evidence that the Nanny State, and especially the misbegotten War on Drugs, is designed to unnecessarily ensnare a distinct demographic— young, poor, often unemployed urban citizens— in confrontations with the cops, too many of which become fatal.

Alas, young black males are disproportionately represented among this particular inharms’-way demographic, and that’s the reason they are “disproportionately” represented in the 302 cases cited above.

Stated differently, the Nanny State results in too many black victims of plain old injustice, even if that is not necessarily the intent of the crusaders and zealots who have launched the state into anti-liberty wars on drugs, vice and victimless iniquities and peccadillos.

That is to say, statism in the sphere of law and order is every bit as dysfunctional as it is in the realm of economics, yet neither conservatives nor progressives recognize it.

Conservatives want way too much law and police empowerment in the service of cultural norms that are none of the state’s damn business in the first place; and progressives confuse the often brutal and unjust over-reach of law enforcement agencies as a manifestation of racism, when it is actually just policing expectorations in behalf of inappropriate missions such as the enforcement of drug laws.

Indeed, the main trouble in America today is not overt racism or even simmering racial animosity. The real evil is the relentless aggrandizement of state power in the form of the Nanny State—a conflation of too many laws, crimes, cops, arrests and thereby opportunities for frictions between the state and its citizenry and for abuse by the gendarmes vested with legal use of violence.

In a word, some citizens sometimes can’t breathe their last breath because in far too many instances liberty can’t breathe in today’s unhinged Nanny State, either.

Among the most recent notorious cases, of course, are George Floyd’s fatal arrest for allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill; Eric Garner (NYC 2014), subdual for selling untaxed cigarettes; Rayshard Brooks for falling asleep drunk in his car at a subsequently incinerated Wendy’s in Atlanta; and Breonna Taylor of Louisville for being awake in her own apartment at 1:30 AM when police barged in with guns blaring in a drug enforcement raid.

These are anecdotal cases, of course, but the big picture statistics tell the same story. In the most recent year of complete data (2018), there were 9.3 million arrests in the US excluding traffic enforcement charges of DUI. Yet among this massive number of arrests, those involving serious crimes against persons and property accounted for just 521,000 or 5.6%. These included:

  • Negligent murder and manslaughter: 11,970;

  • Rape: 25,205;

  • Armed robbery: 88,128;

  • Aggravated assault: 395,800;

That’s it. That’s the contribution to core public safety delivered by the 850,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the USA—about 0.6 arrests per year for serious crimes per law enforcement officer.

As for what they were doing the rest of the time and the other 8,777,000 arrests that occurred in 2018, we can say this: They clearly provided more occasion for conflict between citizens and the gendarmes and for policing actions to go haywire, as in the George Floyd case, than any additional increments of public safety.

After all, the single largest category of arrests in 2018 was for drug abuse violations, which totaled 1,654,282.

In fact, while total arrests for all crimes in 2018 were no higher than they were in 1977 despite a 100 million/50% growth in the US population, and had actually dropped from a peak of nearly 13 million in 2006, the opposite trend was extant in the case of the nation’s misbegotten War on Drugs arrests.

As shown by the chart below, drug arrests in 2018 were nearly at peak levels and were up by more than 171% since 1977—the vast majority of which are made for drug possession generally, and marijuana possession most often.

War on Drugs Arrests, 1980-2016

Not surprisingly, the next largest arrest category after drugs is one called “other assaults” for which 1,063,535 arrests were made in 2018. Yet the FBI’s own definitions raise considerable doubts as to why these are even a proper matter for law enforcement by the state:

Other assaults (simple) – Assaults and attempted assaults where no weapon was used or no serious or aggravated injury resulted to the victim. Stalking, intimidation, coercion, and hazing are included.

Then, of course, we have all the victimless and vice crimes, including the following number of arrests:

  • Prostitution and commercialized vice: 31,147;

  • Sex offenses excluding rape and prostitution: 46,937;

  • Gambling: 3,323;

  • Liquor law offenses: 173,152;

  • Curfew and loitering law violations: 22,031;

  • Vagrancy: 23,546;

  • Public drunkenness: 328,772;

  • Disorderly conduct: 329,152;

  • Forgery and counterfeiting: 50,072;

  • Weapons carrying and possession: 168,403;

  • All other offenses: 3,231,700.

The latter huge number tells you all you need to know. The UCR lists 27 enumerated categories of crime including all of those itemized above–plus the usual suspects like fraud and embezzlement for which there were about 135,000 arrests in 2018. Yet when the whole lists is exhausted, 32% of arrests occurred for crimes that are so minor even the FBI is embarrassed to enumerate them!

So, yes, we do think there are way, way too many crimes and cops, and that decriminalizing and de-funding law enforcement are the only route to reducing police violence.

But by the same token, the unwarranted and often mendacious racializing of police malfeasance, which the George Floyd case has brought to a fever pitch, will only insure retrogression. That is, it will unleash a blind rallying to the defense of law enforcement by conservative Republicans, blue collar whites and the Foxified Right, thereby insuring a continuing failure to attack and drastically curtail the Nanny State regime, which is the real source of policing injustice.

Of course, don’t expect Nancy Pelosi or Sleepy Joe to be any more enlightened on the matter than Sean Hannity. These doddering old fools are now enthrall to the wokedom of the progressive-Left; and, as Maxine Water’s blatant performance as agent provocateur in Minneapolis the night before the verdict makes clear, these people want the problem to fester and metastasize, not be alleviated.

Indeed, it is probably not too far fetched to say that Congresswoman Waters’ call for a guilty verdict or else a new round of violent uprisings amounted to an insurance policy. Three guilty verdicts could not trigger the latter, but a judicial appeal resulting in a mistrial order surely would.

In other words, the Democratic Party has fallen into the grip of vicious leftist zealots and power-hungry authoritarians. And the events of the last two days suggest that two dangerously wrong-headed and ugly narratives—-race-baiting and climate hysteria— now stand at the center of the Dem agenda because the party’s two supreme leaders are too weak and too senile to resist the mob.

So we’d say to the feverish punters of Wall Street, yes, embrace the putative Economic Boom impending and buy the Greatest Financial Bubble in history, if you must.

But, really, if the events which culminated in Tuesday’s triumph of mob justice do not scare the living bejesus out of you, then, well, you probably deserve to suffer the thundering financial gotterdammerung which is surely coming your way.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 04/22/2021 – 18:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3dHOrux Tyler Durden